Hopefully productive, rational discussion can continue in Van's forum in the relevant or new threads. I'm not implying this 'tagline' discussion is not productive or rational. It's just that since it's an internecine issue that it's not of any interest to me as an "outsider" considering the time that I have at my disposal to invest learning and participating here in our discussions regarding breathing and other research.

I really don't remember what I said. I write a lot on these forums and often say things that don't get interpreted as I intended and when I make a mistake, it is an honest mistake. I don't take pleasure in insulting friends or martial art associates.

Quote:

But was just a case of human judgement/error and I prefer it be left there , we dont want to cause any more potential embarresment/offence to anyone .

It must have been pretty insensitive. Can you refresh my recollection?

I've spoken with Pat a number of times in the past and he doesn't strike me as being a person who would be insulted by an innocent comment or something that might be perceived as an insult. Most of the seniors I know will confront the person and ask for a clarification before condemning that person as you and Van have in my case.

In case you were only looking for words to focus on to strengthen your case against me, you may have missed my statement that I did take my objections to private email and only after seeing the tag lines reappearing did I publically state my objection.

And in case you didn't read it, I'll once again state that I know these tag lines weren't address at me.

There are too many examples of people performing incredible feats of self-preservation who have absolutely no training for us to pinpoint exactly what we should teach in order to replicate that quality in our students. Therefore, even though you and I don't believe 100% of what I preached in the 60s, doesn't mean we should consider those who do believe this as being inferior teachers or delusional individuals.

Not at all. It was just my way of ‘grabbing’ attention, but perhaps some percentage really is_ have you considered that? And if so, we certainly have the right to say so on these pages. In turn, they have the right to ‘come back’ with their say.

Quote:

Although I respect Coach Sonnon's views, I have a right to disagree with them, based on my experiences.

True, and so do we with yours without having to concern ourselves with ‘tag lining’ accusations.

Quote:

But even if Scott feels that I am a curmudgeon, well, that is OK. He says it with so much class and style that I really don't mind!

He sure is a classy guy. To wit

Quote:

If I call an act that of a curmudgeon, I shall refer to it specifically. I did not, and as such, I am not insinuating anything. If I refer to either of you, I shall speak with you directly. Anyone who knows me, knows that I am anything but aloof.

_________________

No, George, I don’t think you are a curmudgeon, but I think that expert opinions from combative disciplines that are at odd with tradition, sometimes, not always, bother the hell out of you if they infringe on dogma.

The truth is, given a solid traditional platform, a practitioner who blends with modern, evolutionary methods [forever changing] will become much better rounded. Look at Gary Khoury’s example, blending tradition with coach Blauer’s methods.

He is light years ahead than the typical ‘closet’ martial artist. You have agreed with me in the past, before on this.

Thanks for sticking around. Wouldn't blame you a bit if you decided not to continue. Sorry to have caused you any grief.

The biggest problem I now see here _ is that we have reached a point where every word that is written will be taken to task, every sentence structure suspect_ and this will further alienate potential posters from contributing.

Most deplorable.

We have witnessed the ‘strawman depth charges’ and other desultory tactics in the past without foundation.

I think Laird was right on target with his comment about ‘the language police’

This appears to be the perception of the moment.

Marcus

Quote:

after much hounding George deleted the inappropriate post .

I was at the time in personal contact with him and trying to get him to add his thoughts to a thread on HAPV .

He thought it better to stay out of it when it degraded by the time he had a chance to look at it.

It was a moment of personal embarrassment .

But was just a case of human judgment/error and I prefer it be left there, we don’t want to cause any more potential embarrassment/offence to anyone .

I remember it well. Also his Canadian representative was extremely upset as you and Laird indicated, and wanted no part of this forum.

Agree, Marcus_ best let sleeping dogs lie.

John

Quote:

Please understand that we have history and baggage that we are trying to deal with as best we can.

True, and so do we with yours without having to concern ourselves with ‘tag lining’ accusations.

That is funny Van... Hell, I've spent a lifetime being criticized by people. But. . . there is a difference in saying "You believe in "X", but for the following reasons I think you are wrong and perhaps you should be doing "Y"." . . and:

Folks, if I may be so bold as to contribute a concept from 'intentional community' building (see a great book named Rules for Radicals by SAUL ALINSKY)?

1. Don't presume to know what the other is intending to say. Assume you do not understand clearly, accurately. Assume that you may have a filter (cultural, socio-institutional, egoic, or even merely doctrinal) which may be competing with your ability to hear the other clearly, accurately.
2. Ask for clarification, expansion or restatement.
3. Frame it in your own words and ask if it would be acceptable to do so.

You won't need to police any posters if the requirement is to follow this very Socratic and sincerely egoless approach to understanding one another.

From the perspective of 'intentional community' building, the primary issue in poor communication is problematic when one party adopts the position that the other does not understand and that it is the other party's responsibility to figure it out for themselves. Typically an endless slippery slope of rules are instituted for HOW one may speak.

From the perspective of 'intentional community' building though, effective communication means that the primary goal is to understand what the other means, rather than expecting that the other understands you. The "two-way street" of communication is often misinterpreted that both parties expect the other to understand the their point of view. But effective communication (we could drop the word effective) means that both parties are actively seeking to understand the OTHERS point of view. That is what a "two-way street" means from the perspective of 'intentional community' building.

This is by no means my business since I am neither a member nor an officer in your organization. However, as one colleague to another, please accept this as a suggested solution to what could potentially be the dissolution of affable relations.

I also do not present myself as a master of this method. But it is the doctrinal default setting we've adopted in our organization with uniform success and progress.

I know you perceive me as trying to mount a case against you , this is not the case at all . I for one wish this crap would go away and we could all be more productive .

Quote:

I really don't remember what I said. I write a lot on these forums and often say things that don't get interpreted as I intended and when I make a mistake, it is an honest mistake. I don't take pleasure in insulting friends or martial art associates.

this Is fine George , I merely posted above to take it out of the discussion , as I said

Quote:

ut was just a case of human judgement/error and I prefer it be left there , we dont want to cause any more potential embarresment/offence to anyone .

I dont feel it was good judgement , but I beleive you do have the best in mund in your intentions .

Quote:

It must have been pretty insensitive. Can you refresh my recollection?

You referred to him in the same context as a snake oil salesman , brandishing cure all potions . But this is my recollection , I beleive you did in reference to many EXPERTS but was unfortuanately poorly articulated .

for the record I hold no ill will , just merely clarifying this point .

Quote:

I've spoken with Pat a number of times in the past and he doesn't strike me as being a person who would be insulted by an innocent comment or something that might be perceived as an insult. Most of the seniors I know will confront the person and ask for a clarification before condemning that person as you and Van have in my case.

He`s a good guy and has a very thick skin , I doubt any off us have had as much mud slung In our direction , This is really why I did not wish to bring this up , I dont want you , Hanshi McCarthy , Van , myself etc to get to this pointless mud slinging .

You were asked to correct it many times , But this is pointless , I`m by far not out to get you george , if you read my responses to this I dont see any point where I go after you .

I`m just advocating that Oldfist is approached to deal with these things as the rules stipulate , and we not get involved personally as per the rules .

Oldfist has already stated he finds little wrong with the taglines

Quote:

I don't consider it a big deal, but am just describing a potential point of misunderstanding that is easily fixed.

Van has already he`ll fix anything folks find offensive , just PM him

For the record all

I have nothing but respect for the path youve taken GEM , I quite understand you see me as a negative and perhaps worse , everytime I see a clip or kata of yours etc I have been nothing but impressed .

But I feel Vans points and writings as having just as valid and accurate portrayal , a different angle to approach our learning . The very thing that makes organisations strong .

I regret becoming involved in this thread , If you read my posts youll find no attempt to attack you or flame you .

merely a request to follow policy that seems to have fallen on deaf ears .

I only wish for the forums to continue in the more productive way it has of late .

I would post the quotes of me thanking you for your efforts on the breathing thread , but I`m sure you saw them .

In case you were only looking for words to focus on to strengthen your case against me

What a terrible thing to write about Marcus. “His case” against you? What case George? What’s with you lately, my friend? Nobody here is after you.

Quote:

Choose one of your taglines. . .

Here we go again_ and again, and again_ why don’t we make up T-shirts we can sell at summer camp like “ Capital punishment by Taglines” _ might be a big seller.

Quote:

Most of the seniors I know will confront the person and ask for a clarification before condemning that person as you and Van have in my case.

We did ask for clarification. And ‘condemning’ is a poor choice of words_ because it is a personal attack upon Marcus. Marcus is ‘discussing’ on your site, a medium you created for this very purpose.

I am used to this George, but accusing Marcus of ‘condemning and case building’ is unwholesome.

Quote:

You referred to him in the same context as a snake oil salesman, brandishing cure all potions. But this is my recollection, I believe you did in reference to many EXPERTS but was unfortunately poorly articulated.

Exactly what you did, George_ lumping him in the same ‘experts snake pit’ _ And McCarthy is all about tradition_

But look at how other modern combative experts must have felt in reading that. Talk about ‘tag lining’ _ Do you see it George?

I know Darren Laur read it; luckily he has not made an issue of it. And I hope he is not posting simply because of his work schedule.

Marcus

Quote:

You were asked to correct it many times

You were, George. The post was deleted but I don’t recall any apology to McCarthy.

Quote:

I quite understand you see me as a negative and perhaps worse

Why should Marcus feel this way, George? Your accusations of ‘case against me’ and ‘condemnation’ serve no purpose but to further inflame the situation. Luckily, Marcus is a young, intelligent, confident, and forgiving person.

You may recall some of ‘wars of the forums’ we fought with some pretty mighty people who felt insulted eight of nine years ago. Do you recall Mike Sigman, Chen Tai Chi strong man, who became very irate at you because of a very poor choice of words in a post aimed at him?

Best to remember that the mirror usually has two faces, George.

You have called me by a few choice names over the years, my friend, I will not repeat them here, I have always rolled my shoulders.

But _ Best to choose words more carefully when referring to Marcus, George. He was a most welcome guest at my house; he is a fantastic, powerful, full contact fighter, full to the brim with strength of character and honor.

A true Scot Highlander. We all should be so lucky to have friends like him.

I am asking you to delete this post and refrain from this type of inflammatory comment in future. This constitutes your first warning. You've been banned once already, so if banned a second time it will be for a duration of (at least) one month. See especially Section I. CC13, CC14 and Section II.

I have said nothing inflammatory. I have broken the forum rule of calling someone on not following the rules. Which is against the rules. I pointed out to GEM he was not following the rules, he was calling Van on not following his rules.

Is it just me or does anyone else see this threatened banishment of yours as absolute hipocracy. Whats with the witch hunt and the double standards sir?

Would you point out my escalation or the unfriendly conflict. Up until you showed up I thought we were having a friendly discusussion.

Quote:

CC14. Avoid online uncooperative and disrespectful behavior directed at a moderator or the site owner (e.g. in debate or possibly regarding a previous judgment of a moderator or the site owner).

please point out the disrespect, I'm tired of the accusations put your money were your mouth is John , if you will accuse, judge and execute me then at least givce us the courtesy of backing up some of your acusations pal. I suspected I would not receive impartial consideration on this forum,how about backing up some of these foundless claims.

Quote:

Laird, if you had not asked your question, then I would not have mentioned these details.

Thanks for the response John, it was however a sarcastic retorical question. You seem to be chomping at the bit to exercise your new found powers.

Yes I have been banned before. As far as I'm concerned someone still owes me an appology for that trip down the uechi railroad. If memory serves I was banished for taking a moderator to task for rude insulting comments.

It would appear to the folks in the cheap seats John that the rules only apply to us underlings.

George, the PM thing is water under the bridge. I was embarassed when that thing went down as Marcus and I were attempting to get Pat spend the day in Banff and have a few cold ones. Kind of killed the whole plan. But hey that was yesterday and should be left in the past. Just like as my previous banishment should no John?

I'm disappointed to see my good friend Marcus insulted again. I'm sick of this kind of behavior.

I'm through trying to talk to anyone on this page, and I'm through expecting the leadership to follow their own rules. How stupid of me to expect something like that.

I'll done your muzzle and keep it to myself....unless you folks insult me or my imediate friends expect to hear nothing from me. I'll only repond to personal friends on the forums, and wish to be left in peace.The best way to do that is to not post.

1. Don't presume to know what the other is intending to say. Assume you do not understand clearly, accurately. Assume that you may have a filter (cultural, socio-institutional, egoic, or even merely doctrinal) which may be competing with your ability to hear the other clearly, accurately. 2. Ask for clarification, expansion or restatement. 3. Frame it in your own words and ask if it would be acceptable to do so.

Good advice Scott.

Marcus: I promise to follow Scott's recommendation from now on concerning comments I may find objectionable and hope everyone else will do the same thing.

"Oldfist": I promise to let you do your job from now on without getting involved.

I don't consider it a big deal, but am just describing a potential point of misunderstanding that is easily fixed.

Marcus, unfortunately you quoted this out of context. The comment above applies only to the quote of Scott that I referred to in my post. In fact, I do think that George has a good point and I am hoping that he will find a way to work it out with Van without anyone else's intervention.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum